Tweet
I’d like to move away from the “name issue” for a time and examine the other aspects August 31, 1888 that have been used to indict Cross/Lechmere as Jack the Ripper. So, let’s put names aside and assume – for the sake of argument – that Cross/Lechmere was hiding something and was dishonest in relating his name as Cross.
First, let’s first take a look at what we know of Mary Ann “Polly” Nichols’ last known movements on the morning of her murder. We know that at about 2:30am Emily Holland was returning to Wilmott’s lodging house after going to see the fire at Dible and Co., Engineers, at the dry dock in Shadwell. She encountered Nichols at the corner of Osborne Street and Whitechapel Road. Nichols was drunk. She told Holland that she’d earned the amount needed her nightly lodgings several times, but had spent it. Holland asked Nichols to return to Wilmott’s and spend the night with her. Nichols refused. “I’ll be back soon”, Nichols said, and disappeared down Whitechapel Road. We know that she would be found dead in Buck’s Row sometime around 3:45am. Thus, it’s likely she met her killer within an hour of speaking with Emily Holland.
When we look at the times given by Cross/Lechmere for his movements on the morning of August 31, 1888, we see that they reconcile perfectly with his distance and route to work, allowing him to arrive a few minutes ahead of the time (4:00am) he was expected for work at Pickford's. He allowed thirty minutes for what was – at a reasonable pace – a 24-25 minute walk. He knew that a delay of more than a few minutes would put him "behind time". Anyone who commutes any distance to work by automobile knows this. If you hit particularly heavy traffic or must stop to refuel you know, without checking the time you realize, "I'm going to be late". In my view, the information given by Cross/Lechmere here seems consistent, plausible, and – in all likelihood – truthful.
Cross/Lechmere goes on to tell us that, at approximately 3:45am, he entered Buck’s Row. He stated that he “discerned on the opposite side (of the roadway) something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's Row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he (Cross/Lechmere) himself had come from.”
It may be instructive here to try and view what came next from the perspective of Robert Paul. Paul stated that he quickened his pace as he entered Buck’s Row. “Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about.” He spotted a man standing short distance ahead of him. When he attempted to walk around him, the man approached him, touched his shoulder, and said, “Come and look at this woman.” Robert Paul accompanied Cross/Lechmere a short distance where the two men found, lying on her back in the darkness of Buck’s Row, the body of “Polly” Nichols. Paul felt Nichols’ hands and face and found them cold. Her clothes were “disarranged” and he “helped to pull them down”. He placed his hand on her heart and thought he detected movement, albeit very slight. “I think she is breathing, but very little if she is”, he said. Paul suggested that they prop her up, but Cross/Lechmere refused to touch her. Neither man wished to be late for work, and after spending approximately two minutes in Buck’s Row, the two men agreed to continue on together, in hopes of finding a policeman.
Without presuming that Cross/Lechmere had killed Nichols’, there is nothing suspicious at all about his behavior in Buck’s Row. He approached Paul and asked him to “come and see this woman”. If he were the killer and was indeed interrupted in the act of mutilating the victim, he would have stowed the murder weapon on his person. He would have had no way of knowing if he had blood on his clothing (Buck’s Row was quite dark), and – perhaps more importantly – his hands. He’d just killed and begun disemboweling a human being and hid the knife in his clothing. It seems less than reasonable to assume that his first plan of action would be to approach a man attempting to avoid him, touch that man’s shoulder with his (very likely) blood covered hands, and ask him to come and see his victim. What’s more, when he was given an opportunity to move the victim, thus providing a very reasonable explanation for any blood that he may have had on his hands and clothing, he refused. It’s been alleged these were the actions of psychopath. Yet, we have not one shred of evidence that tells us that Cross/Lechmere was a man of ill-humor, much less a psychopath.
The two men walked together for several minutes and in Baker’s Row near, Old Montague Street, the two men found Police Constable (PC) Jonas Mizen, forty years old, and a fifteen year veteran of the Metropolitan Police. Both Cross/Lechmere and Paul stated that they immediately informed PC Mizen that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row, and that she may be dead. “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead", Cross/Lechmere stated he told Mizen at the inquest into Nichols’ death. Paul in a statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly News’ stated flatly, “I told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, in his own inquest testimony disagreed, saying that he was told only that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row. As we know, some controversy arose (that would intensify some 120 years later) when Mizen testified at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.” Cross/Lechmere testified that he said no such thing:
A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”
Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”
Robert Paul, in both his statement to “Lloyd’s Weekly” and in his inquest testimony, makes no mention of either man telling PC Mizen that a policeman was waiting in Buck’s Row. Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing their information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”
PC Mizen, on the other hand, relates things very differently. He stated that “at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's (sic)-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.”
Let’s exclude everything we are told by Cross/Lechmere and focus only on those points where Paul and Mizen disagree. Paul makes no mention of Mizen having been told only that he was wanted by a policeman. In fact, Paul’s statement (which preceded Cross/Lechmere’s statement) goes into some detail with respect to what Mizen was told: “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.”
This leaves us to try and answer a very simple question: Who is lying here, Mizen or Paul? In order to answer this question, I believe we must ask another: Who had reason to lie, Mizen or Paul? I can come up with no reason for Paul to lie or make inflammatory comments about Mizen. If Mizen had acted as he (Mizen) claimed he did, why would Paul have voiced such strong condemnation of Mizen’s actions? In the absence of any further information regarding Paul’s possible motivations, we use simple logic. And logic tells us that he would not have. Now we must ask, why would Mizen lie? I think that the answer is undeniably obvious. He lied to justify his less than urgent response upon having been told that a woman was lying, likely dead, in Buck’s Row. Claiming he was told only that he was policeman “wanted” him in Buck’s Row, he justifies his not having asked either man a single question and his less than prompt appearance in Buck’s Row. Although, Mizen does go to the further trouble of telling us he did not continue “knocking-up”.
In my view, any objective reading of Cross/Lechmere’s words and actions – as he represented them and as they were corroborated by Paul – both in Buck’s Row and Baker’s Row –do nothing to cast any suspicion on him as the killer of Nichols.
First, let’s first take a look at what we know of Mary Ann “Polly” Nichols’ last known movements on the morning of her murder. We know that at about 2:30am Emily Holland was returning to Wilmott’s lodging house after going to see the fire at Dible and Co., Engineers, at the dry dock in Shadwell. She encountered Nichols at the corner of Osborne Street and Whitechapel Road. Nichols was drunk. She told Holland that she’d earned the amount needed her nightly lodgings several times, but had spent it. Holland asked Nichols to return to Wilmott’s and spend the night with her. Nichols refused. “I’ll be back soon”, Nichols said, and disappeared down Whitechapel Road. We know that she would be found dead in Buck’s Row sometime around 3:45am. Thus, it’s likely she met her killer within an hour of speaking with Emily Holland.
When we look at the times given by Cross/Lechmere for his movements on the morning of August 31, 1888, we see that they reconcile perfectly with his distance and route to work, allowing him to arrive a few minutes ahead of the time (4:00am) he was expected for work at Pickford's. He allowed thirty minutes for what was – at a reasonable pace – a 24-25 minute walk. He knew that a delay of more than a few minutes would put him "behind time". Anyone who commutes any distance to work by automobile knows this. If you hit particularly heavy traffic or must stop to refuel you know, without checking the time you realize, "I'm going to be late". In my view, the information given by Cross/Lechmere here seems consistent, plausible, and – in all likelihood – truthful.
Cross/Lechmere goes on to tell us that, at approximately 3:45am, he entered Buck’s Row. He stated that he “discerned on the opposite side (of the roadway) something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's Row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he (Cross/Lechmere) himself had come from.”
It may be instructive here to try and view what came next from the perspective of Robert Paul. Paul stated that he quickened his pace as he entered Buck’s Row. “Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about.” He spotted a man standing short distance ahead of him. When he attempted to walk around him, the man approached him, touched his shoulder, and said, “Come and look at this woman.” Robert Paul accompanied Cross/Lechmere a short distance where the two men found, lying on her back in the darkness of Buck’s Row, the body of “Polly” Nichols. Paul felt Nichols’ hands and face and found them cold. Her clothes were “disarranged” and he “helped to pull them down”. He placed his hand on her heart and thought he detected movement, albeit very slight. “I think she is breathing, but very little if she is”, he said. Paul suggested that they prop her up, but Cross/Lechmere refused to touch her. Neither man wished to be late for work, and after spending approximately two minutes in Buck’s Row, the two men agreed to continue on together, in hopes of finding a policeman.
Without presuming that Cross/Lechmere had killed Nichols’, there is nothing suspicious at all about his behavior in Buck’s Row. He approached Paul and asked him to “come and see this woman”. If he were the killer and was indeed interrupted in the act of mutilating the victim, he would have stowed the murder weapon on his person. He would have had no way of knowing if he had blood on his clothing (Buck’s Row was quite dark), and – perhaps more importantly – his hands. He’d just killed and begun disemboweling a human being and hid the knife in his clothing. It seems less than reasonable to assume that his first plan of action would be to approach a man attempting to avoid him, touch that man’s shoulder with his (very likely) blood covered hands, and ask him to come and see his victim. What’s more, when he was given an opportunity to move the victim, thus providing a very reasonable explanation for any blood that he may have had on his hands and clothing, he refused. It’s been alleged these were the actions of psychopath. Yet, we have not one shred of evidence that tells us that Cross/Lechmere was a man of ill-humor, much less a psychopath.
The two men walked together for several minutes and in Baker’s Row near, Old Montague Street, the two men found Police Constable (PC) Jonas Mizen, forty years old, and a fifteen year veteran of the Metropolitan Police. Both Cross/Lechmere and Paul stated that they immediately informed PC Mizen that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row, and that she may be dead. “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead", Cross/Lechmere stated he told Mizen at the inquest into Nichols’ death. Paul in a statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly News’ stated flatly, “I told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, in his own inquest testimony disagreed, saying that he was told only that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row. As we know, some controversy arose (that would intensify some 120 years later) when Mizen testified at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.” Cross/Lechmere testified that he said no such thing:
A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”
Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”
Robert Paul, in both his statement to “Lloyd’s Weekly” and in his inquest testimony, makes no mention of either man telling PC Mizen that a policeman was waiting in Buck’s Row. Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing their information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”
PC Mizen, on the other hand, relates things very differently. He stated that “at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's (sic)-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.”
Let’s exclude everything we are told by Cross/Lechmere and focus only on those points where Paul and Mizen disagree. Paul makes no mention of Mizen having been told only that he was wanted by a policeman. In fact, Paul’s statement (which preceded Cross/Lechmere’s statement) goes into some detail with respect to what Mizen was told: “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.”
This leaves us to try and answer a very simple question: Who is lying here, Mizen or Paul? In order to answer this question, I believe we must ask another: Who had reason to lie, Mizen or Paul? I can come up with no reason for Paul to lie or make inflammatory comments about Mizen. If Mizen had acted as he (Mizen) claimed he did, why would Paul have voiced such strong condemnation of Mizen’s actions? In the absence of any further information regarding Paul’s possible motivations, we use simple logic. And logic tells us that he would not have. Now we must ask, why would Mizen lie? I think that the answer is undeniably obvious. He lied to justify his less than urgent response upon having been told that a woman was lying, likely dead, in Buck’s Row. Claiming he was told only that he was policeman “wanted” him in Buck’s Row, he justifies his not having asked either man a single question and his less than prompt appearance in Buck’s Row. Although, Mizen does go to the further trouble of telling us he did not continue “knocking-up”.
In my view, any objective reading of Cross/Lechmere’s words and actions – as he represented them and as they were corroborated by Paul – both in Buck’s Row and Baker’s Row –do nothing to cast any suspicion on him as the killer of Nichols.
Comment